Yes, it may be selfish, but for environmentalists it is selfish and hypocritical. I'm specifically looking at the wealthy, anti-growth, green community on the SF Peninsula.
There are plenty of hypocrites on both sides of the isle. Lots of people who claim to be against regulation... unless it's on their block. People who are environmentalists... unless it means there will be an apartment complex put up next door blocking their view. People who are pro-growth and pro-business... unless it's in their neighborhood. People who are for making housing more affordable, etc etc etc.
So-called environmentalists don't have a monopoly on hypocrisy, it's pretty much universal.
Yet some people vote for representatives who approve measures like SB50, and others vote for representatives who reject them. That is the dividing line that matters. How they vote, and invest time and money to influence other people’s vote, is what determines who is a hypocrite.
You should get to know the other group of environmentalists who aren't wealthy, are pro-density, and are less likely to live in the peninsula (although I'm sure they exist there too). There are a lot more of them, so it shouldn't be hard!
Because by definition, they hardly represent the majority of pro-density advocates. If the GP has common cause with YIMBY urbanist environmentalists, then by numbers they are in good company.
The anti local density environmental crowd might represent more dollars, though. That's perhaps the issue.
I suspect, however that the divide is more generational. For the older generation, environmentalism was far more about preserving local wildlands and the wildlife in your backyard. The environmental problems that face the younger generation are far larger in scope and far more deeply intertwined with questions about how we power society.
So-called environmentalists don't have a monopoly on hypocrisy, it's pretty much universal.